Re: The Real Junk Science

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <b9hje.55415$IO.33552@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>    Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>Lloyd Parker wrote:

>>>We're not talking about the natural greenhouse effect, 

>>	Define natural.

> Gee, let's define "science" and maybe "arithmetic" while we're at it.  
> You're a scientist?

	If you insist I will but you first defining natural. Yes I am a scientist
but you first defining 
natural. Take all the screens you need to define it not a one line
avoidance of a definition. If you 
use the word you must be able to define it. That is the definition of
literate.

>>>which has been in balance for millions of years. 

>>	But it has not been and millions of years is a blink of an eye for
earth.

> Yes it has.

	Mere assertion. I await your presentation of the evidence.

>>>We're talking about the additional warming, 
>>>which has been happening for just the last 120 years.  And it's caused
by 
>>>increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn is caused by human 
>>>activities.

>>	What caused the little Ice Age 600 years ago? Please be specific in the
human cause for it.

> What caused a traffic accident yesterday?  A car changing lanes?  Gee,
guess 
> DUI couldn't cause one today then.

	So what is passed is chance and the future is rock solid predicted and
chance has ceased to be a 
factor. Please, child, you have everything to learn about science.

>>>>	Please do.
>>
>>>>	I do not take appeals to authority nor hand-waving for an answer. If 
> 
> it will help you, I am a 
> 
>>>>physicist so you can produce your answer in terms of physics.

>>>You're a physicist?  Yeah, sure.

>>	Yes. And I regard the opinions of others you are repeating from
journalism majors very dumb.

> Do you regard the opinions of the National Academy of Sciences as dumb? 

> NASA?  EPA?  NOAA?  IPCC?

	Opinions are like elbows. Even NASA has at least two. Opinions are not
science, period. Learn 
something.

>>>>	If you are not a scientist, you have no opinion of interest in this
discussion.

>>>>	And I find it interesting that non-scientists get pissed when
informed their opinions are worthless.

>>>I find it interesting that you claim you're a scientist and post
crapola.

>>	As you are not a scientist, how would you know?

> If it smells like...

	Opinions are like smells. Even NOAA has at least two.

-- 
When there is knowledge there is no need for belief.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 3431
  nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
  http://www.giwersworld.org